On April 6, the U.S.
Court of Appeals, 10th circuit, ruled that political parties have
a right to decide for themselves who should vote in their primary. In this
case, the Libertarian Party wanted all voters to be able to choose a Libertarian
primary ballot, even though Oklahoma has partisan registration. Beaver
v Clingman, 03-6058. The decision is by Judge Carlos Lucero, a Clinton
appointee; and is co-signed by Judges Paul Kelly, a Bush Sr. appointee, and
Terrence OíBrien, a Bush Jr. appointee.

The U.S. Supreme Court
had ruled in 1986 that parties have a right to invite registered independents
into its primary. But only one other court, the First Circuit, had ever ruled
that parties may invite all registered voters. The First Circuit decision,
Cool Moose Party v State of Rhode Island, was issued in 1999. Ironically,
the Cool Moose Party no longer exists.

The 10th circuit
decision is much stronger for party rights than a 9th circuit decision
issued last December, Arizona Libertarian Party v Bayless. The Arizona
decision said a state may force a party to let independent voters vote in
its primary (for public office), unless the party can show that it is harmed.
Therefore, it sent the case back to the lower court for a trial. The trial
in that case will commence in a few months.

Oklahoma had argued that
if voters who are registered "Democratic" or "Republican"
may choose a Libertarian primary ballot, the major parties would suffer. But
the 10th circuit said, "Any concern that the Republican and
Democratic Parties might have for losing voters to the Libertarian primary
elections overlooks the countervailing consideration that allowing Oklahomaís
voters additional choices in primary voting promotes the associational rights
of the individual voters within those parties.

"In this regard,
to allow the Libertarian Party to invite registered voters of other parties
to participate in their primaries not only advances the associational interests
of the Libertarian Party, but it also allows voters the benefit of choosing
a primary."

The 10th circuit
also said, "A state generally may not restrict the ability of a political
party to define the group of citizens that will choose its standard-bearer."

When courts rule that
political parties have the right to decide for themselves how to nominate
candidates, ballot access rights also gain. Even independent candidates gain.
For example, when Alaska and Washington were told to stop using a blanket
primary (because the qualified political parties objected), both states eased
ballot access for independent candidates. Formerly both states required independents
to run in the blanket primaries. But now that there is no generic blanket
primary in either state, independent candidates qualify directly for the general
election ballot, and as a result they enjoy a later filing deadline.

Another advantage of
decisions that let parties decide for themselves how to nominate candidates
is that parties know their own needs better than the government does. Minor
parties sometimes suffer, when they are forced to nominate by primary, because
for a majority of partisan offices, no one from that party runs for the nomination.
In that environment, a candidate who is hostile to the partyís ideas can easily
capture its nomination. So far, the courts have not yet recognized the right
of a minor party to insist that it nominate by convention instead of by primary.
However, the logic of the recent 10th circuit opinion leads in
this direction.

Oklahoma says it may
seek U.S. Supreme Court review.

NEW
WASHINGTON PRIMARY LAW

On April 1, Washington
Governor Gary Locke signed the bottom half of SB 6453 into law. As a result,
effective June 10, 2004, Washington will have an open primary instead of the
old blanket primary.

Open primaries are common
in the U.S. They exist for all political parties, and for all voters, in Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Alaska, Utah and Oklahoma, primaries are open
for some parties but not other parties. "Open primary," as defined
in political science books and court decisions, means a primary that gives
all voters a free choice of which partyís primary to vote in, on primary day.

Generally, but not always,
states that donít ask voters to choose a party on voter registration forms
are "open primary" states. But there are exceptions. Iowa does ask
voters to choose a party on voter registration forms, yet Iowa nevertheless
lets a primary voter ask for any partyís primary ballot. On the other hand,
Illinois and Ohio donít ask for a party choice on voter registration forms.
But since Illinois and Ohio keep a record of which partyís primary a voter
chooses, voters must stay with that choice for the next primary as well, unless
they abstain from voting in the next primary, or unless they fill out a special
form between primaries.

Governor Locke could
have chosen to implement the "top two" system instead of an open
primary (see Ballot Access News of April 1, 2004). The legislature
sent him both, knowing that he would use his "line item veto" to
choose one or the other.

NEW
BALLOT ACCESS RULES IN WASHINGTON

The law establishing
an open primary in Washington also revises ballot access. The new procedures
are easier for the statewide nominees of unqualified parties and statewide
independent candidates. But they are more difficult for district and county
nominees.

Under the old system,
all candidates had to poll at least 1% in the stateís blanket primary, in
order to advance to the general election. Under the new system, the nominees
of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, go directly to the November
ballot. Therefore, they now have a later filing deadline.

Under the old system,
minor party nominees for Governor and U.S. Senator always failed the 1% primary
vote test (except that the Libertarian Party met it for both offices in 2000).
So, since the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates,
no longer need to compete in the primary, ballot access for statewide candidates
is now easier.

The chief victim of the
old 1% primary vote test for Governor and U.S. Senator had been the Socialist
Workers Party. That party tried and failed to pass the vote test, for those
offices, in every election in which the old system existed (starting in 1977),
except that by 2000 the party had given up and didnít even try. Trying and
failing meant that the party paid a large filing fee, obtained 200 signatures,
got on the primary ballot, but not the November ballot. That meant no appearance
in the state voter handbook, since there is such a handbook only for the November
election, not the September primary.

Other parties that failed
the old 1% primary vote test for Governor and U.S. Senator were the Libertarian,
U.S. Taxpayers, Populist, Patriot, and Reform Parties. The Green and Natural
Law Parties never even tried.

The new law requires
1,000 signatures for statewide office. Although that is higher than the old
200 signatures, getting rid of the 1% vote test makes the change well worth
it.

However, the old 1% primary
vote test, in practice, didnít bar minor party and independent candidates
for district office, so getting rid of it for those offices is no improvement.
Oddly enough, voter behavior differs for statewide office versus other office.
Minor party nominees for legislature never failed the 1% primary vote test,
and seldom failed it for US House. One can be puzzled by this, yet accept
that it is true.

The new law, unfortunately,
sets new petition requirements for district office that are much higher than
the old ones. US House goes from 25 signatures to 1,000; state legislature
from 25 signatures to 100.

Another disadvantage
of the new law is that qualified parties (those that polled over 5% of the
vote for any statewide office in the last election) still must pass the 1%
primary vote test. The qualified parties are the Democratic, Republican and
Libertarian Parties. However, the law says any qualified party that polled
less than 10% is free to be treated as though it were unqualified.

The Libertarians must
decide by June 25 whether to be treated as a qualified or an unqualified party.
If they choose "qualified," they will need to get perhaps 12,000
voters to choose their primary ballot in September.

But if the party chooses
"unqualified," then it must obtain 1,000 signatures for each of
its statewide and U.S. House nominees, and 100 signatures for each of its
legislative nominees. All the petitions must be completed in a single day.

It isnít obvious what
the Washington Libertarian Party will decide. The Wisconsin Libertarian Party
attracted more than 2% of the primary voters in 2002; but generally, in open
primary states, less than 1% of the voters choose a Libertarian primary ballot.
The only other state that has a minimum vote test in the primary (for all
a partyís nominees, not just write-in nominees) is North Dakota, which requires
300 votes for statewide office. 300 votes in a typical North Dakota primary
is .3%, and the Libertarians have always met this test.

HOUSE
PASSES HR 2844

On April 22, the U.S.
House of Representatives passed HR 2844, which tells the states to hold special
U.S. House elections within 45 days of the death of a member. However, the
law would only apply when at least 101 seats are vacant. The intent of the
bill is to handle catastrophic events, such as an explosion in the Capitol
Building. The vote was 306-97.

The bill says, "If
a special election is held under this subsection, not later than 10 days after
the Speaker announces that the vacancy exists, the political parties of the
State that are authorized to nominate candidates by State law may each nominate
one candidate to run in the election."

The bill makes no provision
for independent candidates, and is therefore flawed.

Every time Congress passes
a bill, exercising its Article One authority to supercede state elections
laws in federal elections, the case in favor of a federal law governing ballot
access in congressional elections becomes stronger.

IRV
NEWS

California: on
April 8, the California Secretary of State certified a plan to let San Francisco
use Instant-Runoff Voting for its county supervisoral elections this November.

Utah: all parties
hold nominating conventions in this state, and primaries are held only when
at least two candidates get substantial support at the party convention. The
Republican Party has been using IRV since 2002 for its conventions, but there
were no statewide races in Utah in 2002, so IRV didnít get that much publicity.
However, this year there are 8 candidates for Governor at the Republican meeting
on May 8, and IRV is getting much more notice.

On April 21, AB 2949
passed the California Assembly Elections Committee. It creates public funding
for state office candidates who receive a certain number of $5 contributions.

Unlike the other states
with such "Clean Elections" public financing, the California bill
abandons the principle of neutrality. Candidates who are members of parties
that polled at least 10% of the vote for any statewide office at the last
election would automatically get twice as much public funding. In the other
"Clean Elections" states (Maine, Arizona and Vermont), the law does
not discriminate by the candidateís party.

Independent candidates
who receive the required number of $5 contributions would not receive any
funding until the general election is over; and they would receive the money
only if they had polled 5% of the vote.

Members of parties that
had polled 10% of the vote in the last election for any statewide office would
need $5 from at least 500 persons who live in the candidateís district, if
they were running for Assembly. For State Senate, they would need such contributions
from 1,000 residents; for Governor, 15,000 contributions; for other statewide
office, 7,500.

Members of parties that
had polled 3% but less than 10% for any statewide office in the last election
would need half as many contributors, and would receive one-half as much public
funding for the general election, and one-fifth as much for the primary. Independents
would be treated like members of these parties.

Recipients of public
funding would be required to participate in two debates in the general election,
and would receive a free statement in the Voters Handbook. Other candidates
would not necessarily be invited into these debates, and would be required
to pay for a statement in the Votersí Handbook.

Write-in candidates at
primaries could qualify; but write-in candidates at the general election could
not.

Absurd
Results

AB 2949, if it had been
in existence in the past, would have lead to these absurd results:

1914: the Progressive
nominee for Governor of California, Hiram Johnson, defeated his Republican,
Democratic, Socialist and Prohibition Party opponents, and won the
election. But under AB 2949, Johnson could not have received any public funding,
whereas his Republican, Democratic and Socialist opponent would each have
received $10,000,000 for the general election (assuming each of those candidates
had been able to get $5 contributions from 15,000 individuals). The Prohibition
Party nominee would have received $5,000,000 (again assuming that he could
have raised $5 from each of 15,000 people).

The reason Hiram Johnson
would not have been able to qualify for public funding in 1914 is that the
Progressive Party had not existed in California in 1912. By contrast, the
Democratic, Republican and Socialist Parties had, and all of them had polled
over 10% for president in 1912; also the Prohibition Party had polled over
3% for president in California in 1912.

Thus, the person who
actually won the general election in 1914 would have been excluded
from all public funding, and been excluded from debates, and would not have
been given a free statement in the Votersí HandbookÖyet four of his opponents
would have had those advantages.

1986: Quentin
Kopp was elected to the State Senate as an independent candidate. The results
were Kopp 46.9%; the Democratic nominee 45.5%; the Republican nominee 7.6%.
If AB 2949 had been in effect, no matter how many $5 contributions Kopp had
received during the campaign, he would have received no public funding, until
after the election was over. Yet, his two major party general election opponents
would have each received $300,000 for the general election (assuming they
had each received $5 from 1,000 residents).

1990, 1994: repeats
of 1986. Kopp was re-elected, but under AB2949, he could not have received
any funding until after the election, no matter how many contributors he had.
But his Republican opponents, who received 9.3% of the vote in 1990, and 14.4%
in 1994, would have received $300,000 if they had the donations.

1992: Lucy Killea
was elected as an independent to the State Senate with 60.4%. She could not
have received any public funding until after the election, whereas her Republican
opponent, an incumbent legislator, would have received $300,000. Her Libertarian
and Peace & Freedom opponents would each have received $150,000 each (since
both those parties had polled over 3% in 1990 for a statewide office), presuming
that each of them could have received $5 from each of 500 residents.

1992: no Green
candidate could have received any public funding, since the Green Party hadnít
been on the ballot in 1990. By contrast, Libertarian and Peace & Freedom
members would have been eligible for some public funding (if their nominees
had enough contributors). Yet the most successful minor party nominee for
state office in 1992 was a Green (the Green in the 63rd Assembly
district polled 12.7% in a race against a Democrat and a Republican).

1994: again, no
Green candidate could have received any public funding, since the Green Party
hadnít run any statewide candidates in 1992. But the American Independent
and Peace & Freedom Parties each would have been eligible, if their nominees
received enough contributions.

1996: Dominic
Cortese, a sitting legislator who was the Reform Party nominee for State Senate,
could not have received any public funding since the Reform Party was new,
but his Libertarian opponent might have.

1999: a Green
was actually elected to the legislature, but if AB 2949 had been in effect,
her only opponent in the run-off would have had $300,000; she would have had
$150,000.

If the bill is signed
into law, the voters will vote on it in November 2004.

LEGISLATIVE
NEWS

Connecticut: Bill
127 was signed into law on April 16. It tpreserves a minor partyís "qualified
status" in congressional and legislative districts, even after that district
changes its boundaries due to redistricting.

Kentucky: HB 428,
sponsored by the Secretary of State, failed to pass the legislature before
adjournment. As a result, the state is stuck with an April 1 declaration of
candidacy requirement for independent and minor party presidential candidates
that is believed to be unconstitutional. Most minor parties havenít even chosen
their presidential candidates yet. Ralph Nader, three Libertarians (Nolan,
Badnarik and Diket), and one Constitution Party presidential candidate complied
with the law, but no one seeking the nomination of any other minor party did
so. It is possible that the Secretary of State will obtain a legal opinion
that the requirement is unconstitutional.

Louisiana: on
April 20, Rep. William Daniel, a Baton Rouge Democrat, introduced HB 1605.
It would ease the definition of "political party." Current law requires
a party to have 5% of all the registered voters, or to have polled 5% for
president. The bill would change this to registration of 1,000 plus a fee
of $1,000.

Louisiana (2):
SB 203, by Senator Cleo Fields, would restore closed primaries. It would also
require candidates of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, to
submit 10,000 signatures for statewide office, and 2,000 for U.S. House. Registered
members of qualified parties could not sign these petitions. A similar restriction
was held unconstitutional in Arizona in federal court in 1999.

Tennessee: on
April 8, HB3043 was signed into law. It requires independent presidential
candidates to submit a full slate of elector candidates. As a result, 275
signatures are now required for an independent presidential candidate, instead
of 25 signatures. The law went into effect immediately.

BAD
ALABAMA RULING

On March 30, the Alabama
Attorney General ruled that stand-ins for president are not permitted on independent
presidential petitions.

In 1984 and again in
1996, the Attorney General had ruled that stand-ins are legal for vice-president,
so the new opinion isnít consistent. The new ruling means that minor parties
canít start petitioning to get their presidential candidates on the ballot
until after they have chosen their presidential candidates. Luckily the independent
presidential petitions arenít due until September 6.

Alabama: a decision
is due momentarily in McGinley v Republican Party of Alabama, cv2004-1017,
circuit court, 15th dist. The issue is whether the Republican Party
can exclude a candidate from its primary because her web site had advocated
support for the Constitution Party.

California: on
April 19, Green congressional nominee Terry Baum filed a lawsuit in state
court, to win a place on the November ballot. Baum v Arntz, San Fran.,
504120. The issue is whether primary write-ins should be counted when the
voter who cast the write-in vote didnít check the box next to the write-in
space.

Georgia: on April
16 federal court lowered the number of signatures for minor party and independent
legislative candidates (for 2004 only) from 5% of the number of registered
voters, to 3.33% (see B.A.N. of March 1). Larios v Cox, 1:03-cv-663,
n.d.

Georgia (2): on
April 15, the 11th circuit ruled that local government cannot require
a permit for a group of more than 5 people to carry on political activity
on sidewalks and in parks. Burk v Augusta, 03-11756.

New Mexico: on
April 13, a court removed two Green candidates from the partyís primary ballot,
because the party didnít file a timely notice that they had received significant
support at its convention. Brown v Vigil-Giron, cv-2004-2249, Albuq.

New York: on April
23, the 2nd circuit ruled that the Voting Rights Act canít be used
to protect voting rights for felons. Muntaqim v Coombe, 01-7260.

North Carolina:
the hearing in DeLaney v Bartlett on March 31 went well. The issue
is why the state requires more signatures for a statewide independent than
for a new party. The only reason the state gave was that "minor parties
have distinct ideologies, whereas independent candidates donít." The
judge seemed skeptical of the stateís logic.

Oklahoma: on April
8, the Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging that the
ballot access law for new parties violates the State Constitutionís guarantee
of "free and equal elections." Libt. Political Org. v Clingman,
Okla. Co., 2004-2949.

Pennsylvania:
on March 26, the State Supreme Court said that a law invalidating write-in
votes cast for candidates whose names are on the ballot is not mandatory.
It ruled that such votes should be counted. Shambach v Bickhart, 951MAL2003.

Washington: dueling
lawsuits have been filed around the stateís new primary system (see p. 2).
Washington State Grange v Locke, 75384-9, in the State Supreme Court,
claims the new law is void because of the bill title. Locke v Reed, no.
75392-0, says that any attempt to stop the new law with a referendum petition
is invalid.

2004
PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE

REQUIREMENTS

SIGNATURES
COLLECTED

DEADLINElater
method

FULL
PARTY

CAND.

LIB'T

GREEN

NADER

CONSTI.

REFORM

Alabama

41,012

5,000

300

0

0

*2,500

0

Sep
6

Alaska

(reg)
6,937

#2,845

already
on

already
on

0

*already
on

0

Aug
4

Arizona

16,348

*14,694

already
on

0

*400

0

0

Jun
9

Arkansas

10,000

1,000

*900

*660

0

*200

0

Aug
2

California

(reg)
77,389

153,035

already
on

already
on

*0

already
on

*0

Aug
6

Colorado

(reg)
1,000

#pay
fee

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

already
on

July
5

Connecticut

no
procedure

#7,500

*100

already
on

*250

*1,000

0

Aug
7

Delaware

(reg)
*259

5,184

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

227

Aug
21

D.C.

no
procedure

est.
#3,600

can't
start

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
17

Florida

be
organized

93,024

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

already
on

Sep
1

Georgia

37,153

#37,153

already
on

*5,000

*800

0

0

July
13

Hawaii

677

3,711

already
on

already
on

0

*0

0

Sep
3

Idaho

10,033

5,017

already
on

*4,200

0

already
on

0

Aug
31

Illinois

no
procedure

#25,000

*7,500

*1,500

*4,000

0

0

Jun
21

Indiana

no
procedure

#29,553

already
on

*500

*1,500

0

0

Jul
1

Iowa

no
procedure

#1,500

*600

*100

0

25

0

Aug
13

Kansas

16,714

5,000

already
on

0

0

*6,500

already
on

Aug
2

Kentucky

no
procedure

#5,000

*150

0

0

*400

0

Aug
26

Louisiana

est.
(reg) 140,000

#pay
fee

1,369

855

0

39

2,900

Sep
7

Maine

25,260

#4,000

0

already
on

0

0

0

Aug
9

Maryland

10,000

27,899

*finished

already
on

*1,000

*already
on

0

Aug
2

Mass.

est.
(reg) 38,000

#10,000

already
on

already
on

0

33

1,469

July
27

Michigan

31,776

31,776

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

already
on

July
15

Minnesota

112,557

#2,000

0

already
on

canít
start

0

0

Sep
14

Mississippi

be
organized

#1,000

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

already
on

Sep
3

Missouri

*undetermined

10,000

already
on

0

0

*50

0

July
26

Montana

5,000

#5,000

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

already
on

July
28

Nebraska

4,810

2,500

already
on

4,550

0

0

0

Aug
24

Nevada

4,805

4,805

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

0

July
9

New
Hamp.

13,260

#3,000

0

0

0

finished

0

Aug
11

New
Jersey

no
procedure

#800

0

0

0

*25

0

July
26

New
Mexico

2,422

14,527

already
on

already
on

0

*finished

0

Sep
7

New
York

no
procedure

#15,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
17

No.
Carolina

58,842

100,532

already
on

9,100

1,500

100

0

Jul
6

North
Dakota

7,000

#4,000

*canít
start

*canít
start

*canít
start

*canít
start

*canít
start

Sep
3

Ohio

32,290

5,000

in
court

0

0

*7,000

0

Aug
19

Oklahoma

51,781

37,027

*25,500

0

*2,000

0

0

Jul
15

Oregon

18,864

15,306

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

0

Aug
24

Penn.

no
procedure

25,697

*400

*3,000

*500

0

0

Aug
2

Rhode
Island

16,592

#1,000

0

already
on

*canít
start

0

0

Sep
3

So.
Carolina

10,000

10,000

already
on

*already
on

*200

already
on

already
on

Jul
15

South
Dakota

8,364

#3,346

*finished

0

0

*already
on

0

Aug
3

Tennessee

41,322

*275

0

0

0

0

0

Aug
19

Texas

45,540

64,077

*28,000

*2,000

*20,000

*0

0

May
24

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

0

Sep
3

Vermont

be
organized

#1,000

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

0

Sep
16

Virginia

no
procedure

#10,000

*6,000

*500

0

0

0

Aug
20

Washington

no
procedure

*#1,000

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
25

West
Va.

no
procedure

#12,963

*5,500

0

0

0

0

Aug
2

Wisconsin

10,000

#2,000

already
on

already
on

canít
start

already
on

can't
start

Sep
14

Wyoming

3,644

3,644

already
on

0

0

0

0

Aug
23

TOTAL
STATES ON

27

23

0

*17

7

-

# allows partisan label.
* entry changed since last B.A.N.

Prohibition is on
in Colorado.

Socialist is finished
in N.J. and has 1,100 in Michigan.

Socialist Equality
has 500 signatures in N.J. and 1,500 in Ohio.

American has 50 in
Arkansas.

NADER
FOUNDS A NEW POPULIST PARTY

On April 21, Ralph Nader
filed a request with the Federal Election Commission for primary season matching
funds. Such funds are given to presidential candidates who are seeking the
nomination of any political party, and who have raised at least $5,000 from
each of 20 states.

Nader has raised this
amount in 23 states, and his submission says that he is seeking the nomination
of the Populist Party. Naderís new Populist Party is his own creation, and
has no connection with the Populist Party founded in 1984. That older Populist
Party last appeared on the ballot of any state in 1996, and no longer exists.

Another reason for Nader
to create a party is that Florida requires no signatures for nominees of minor
parties that hold a national convention, whereas independent presidential
candidates need 93,024 signatures. Also, Maryland requires 10,000 for parties
but 27,899 for independents.

NADER
NAMES STAND-IN V-P

Jan Pierce will serve
as Ralph Naderís stand-in candidate for vice-president. Many states require
independent presidential petitions to name a vice-presidential candidate,
even when the actual vice-presidential candidate hasnít yet been chosen. Thus,
it has become traditional for independent presidential candidates to choose
"stand-ins" for this purpose. When the true candidate is chosen,
the "stand-in" resigns. Pierce, 66, is a 40-year veteran of the
labor movement, and before he retired, was a National Vice-President of the
Communications Workers of America. He now lives in Ohio.

MINOR
PARTY VICTORIES

On April 6, twelve Green
Party members, and seven Libertarians, were elected or re-elected to Wisconsin
public office, including County Commissioners, Town Board, and School Boards.
Also, a Libertarian was elected the same day as city marshal in Greendale,
Missouri.

NEW
COMPETITION FOR BALTIMORE

The Green Party has nominated
eight candidates for Baltimore city council. For over fifty years, the Democrats
have won every seat on this body, and no minor party has appeared on the ballot
for this office. The Greens were able to nominate with no petition, thanks
to their ballot access victory last year (see B.A.N. of Sep. 1, 2003).
The Constitution Party enjoys the same freedom to run candidates in all Maryland
partisan elections with no petition, and within a few weeks the Libertarians
will also.

VETERANS
PARTY

Last fall, the
Veterans Party was organized, with headquarters in Pinellas Park, Florida.
The party has no plans to run a presidential candidate this year, but wants
to qualify a U.S. House candidate in Georgia, and a U.S. Senate candidate
in Florida. However, the Georgia petition requirement for that office is so
severe, no minor party has ever been able to comply with it in the 61 years
it has existed. And the Florida race requires a filing fee of more than $9,000,
a sum unlikely to be available.

The March B.A.N. said
that Libertarians in Georgia were trying to qualify a candidate for the U.S.
House, but that effort has been abandoned. Thus the Democratic-Republican
monopoly for U.S. House races in Georgia continues for a seventh decade.

MOUNTAIN
PARTY

The Mountain Party is
a ballot-qualified party in West Virginia. Its state convention on May 1 is
deciding whether to nominate Nader for president, or to have no candidate.

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use ban@richardwinger.com.
If you donít use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.